British Airports Authority (BAA), the owners of Heathrow Airport, are seeking an injunction preventing birch twig and rifa environmentalists from protesting within 100 metres of the airport or within the same proximity to any tube station along the Piccadilly Line. Some of these protestors are against a third runway at Heathrow, the world’s busiest international airport with almost 70 million passengers annually. Most appear to be against the concept of mass airline travel per se. Groups such as Plane Crazy and Camp for Climate Action are very much in evidence here. Basically these are comprised of frothy coffee dip-sticks who would like nothing better than to see the British people returning to the era of summer holidays in rain-drenched Worthing. Sorry guys, it ain’t happening. There is a big wide world out there that people increasingly want to discover and they are not going the return to caravans or dingy B&Bs at Selsey Bill so that you morons can claim you’re doing your bit for the environment.

No wacko cause would be complete without the vocal endorsement of Ken Livingstone. He wants the courts to rule against the injunction in the interests of peaceful protest. Sorry, Ken, I’m not buying it. The presence of protestors close to Heathrow Airport or the tube system would, I feel, actually be a major hindrance to the travelling public. Also, the Metropolitan and British Transport police divisions have enough on their plate at the moment trying to stymie mass murderers from your favourite ethnic minority community. They don’t need the added headache of clusters of stentorian ‘Swampys’ inconveniencing the rest of London’s population who desire an escape – albeit a temporary one – from this saturated, overtaxed and overcrowded hell-hole we are pleased to call the United Kingdom of 2007.

We are a strange breed here in the UK. What I mean to say is our politicians and those in high office are a strange breed. In other countries politicians tend to show solidarity with the majority population in times of crises. Here, ours bend over backwards to bring fraternity to communities from which the gravest threats to our country emanate. Look at Alex ‘I hate the English but love the Muslims’ Salmond. In the wake of the Islamic terror attack at Glasgow Airport he is meeting Scottish Muslim leaders to demonstrate just how oh-so-lovely we all find them, and how we all just positively salivate with glee at the fact they live in our country in such numbers and with such self-imposed separation.

This is a time when we should be saying to Muslims: ‘Look, you either integrate and show fealty to this country or you sod off somewhere else more accommodating to your never-ending stream of demands.’ We don’t have One Scotland, Mr Salmond; we don’t have One Britain. We have an increasing ethno-fragmentation of society caused in small part by mass general immigration and in large part by a restless, ungrateful and poisonous Islamic rabble hell-bent on changing our way of life using the fig leaf of their ‘religion’ as a constant catalyst for that change.

Salmond pretends that diversity is consistent with a united identification with Scotland. Hogwash. It is no more consistent with Scotland than it would be consistent with anywhere else blessed with ruling classes anxious to show solidarity with minorities at the expense of the majority indigenous population. It is all very well for Muslims at this, or any other, meeting to scream their law-abiding nature and peaceful intent. The screams fool nobody. Why? Because the whole doctrine of Islam cocoons a form of theological, social and cultural apartheid, which at one level isolates and ghettoises areas they move into en masse, and at another level plants the acorns of ideological supremacy from which the oak trees of terrorism flourish.

Tolerance from the British people towards this minority becomes more strained with every new story of their ‘demands’ and ‘rights’ and with increased cultural separation from the rest of us. Pretending everything is hunky-dory by displays of cameraderic obsequiousness at Bute House ain’t gonna fool anybody!

Altogether these four jihadists collected the equivalent of nearly $400,000 dollars in various forms of government assistance in the years prior to their strike. High as this figure is, it does not include the healthcare and schooling they received over time.

£200,000 – not including health care, education and what have you – for 4 "asylum seekers"? Tell me again about those huge benefits they bring to the economy.

As they put on their death-laden backpacks on that morning of July 21, all the free housing, education, healthcare and income support they had received counted for nothing. The only thing on their mind was murder. This was their payback to the country that provided for them so generously in their hour of need. Inspired by the teachings of Islam, they sought to repay great good with great evil.

No matter how much is done for them, far too many despise the societies from which they so willingly draw support and benefits. We can get some sense of just what we are up against from the suicide note of Ramzi Mohammed which reads in part:

My family, don’t cry for me. But indeed rejoice in happiness and love what I have done for the sake of Allah for he loves those who fight for his sake.

Footage from a surveillance camera revealed the inhuman way in which Mohammed sought to carry out his errand ‘for the sake of Allah.’ As he was connecting the wires to set off the explosion, he purposefully pointed his device toward a mother and her child who were sitting next to him.

As Kohlmayer asks, how are we supposed to live side by side with people whose ideology (Islam is NOT just a religion) inspires them to commit such atrocities. It’s all very well demanding that we remain "tolerant", but just why are we supposed to tolerate people who want to kill as many of us as possible – wherever and whenever they can?

What do you make of the news that group of British Muslims have opposed plans for a pet food factory to be built as possible pork emissions will violate their religious rights?

Butchers Pet Care could shelve plans for a factory in Coton Park, near Rugby, because angry Asian families (are there any other sort these days?) have complained to their residents’ association about pork smells drifting into their garden. Muslim residents in the area also claim the pork will effectively “rain down” on their homes and gardens after the factory’s 100ft chimney has pumped the meat extracts into the atmosphere. The Coton Park Residential Association said they have received complaints from Muslims – who are directed to not eat pork by the Qur’an – and are taking the matter very seriously.

If you read the link you will se that these Muslim objections are being taken very seriously indeed and I bet the factory will not be built. Once again we see assertive Muslims dictating the new nature of our society and whilst the issue of a location of a pet food factory may seem trivial, we would be barking mad to go along with their intolerance. No one is asking them to EAT the petfood, although I wonder if they own dogs and if so what do they feed them? British Muslims are making a concerted power drive to change our society, presenting their “religious rights” as the trump card.

Let’s cut to the chase concerning the meeting between UK PM Gordon Brown and President Bush yesterday. Discussing the future of UK troops in Iraq Brown has told Bush he would not delay their exit in order to show unity with the United States. After four hours of talks with the US President at his Camp David retreat, Brown told a joint press conference he would make a Commons statement in October on the future of the 5,500 British troops in the Basra region. The Bush administration has been nervous that a full British withdrawal would add to the criticism. But Mr Brown made clear – and President Bush accepted – that Britain would go its own way, even if that gave the impression the two countries were diverging.

And that’s EXACTLY what Al Queda want to see. Divide and Conquer.

Brown has no stomach to FIGHT militant Islam, he would much prefer to find a way to instigate a conflict resolution process with them, involving financial aid no doubt. He does NOT get it in the way that Blair did. The Jihadists seek to cower us into splitting with our allies and Brown will give them what they want. This will give him excellent media headlines and expect those poll numbers to rise even further. Life will be good under Gordon – until the Jihadists strike again, and again….and then what? Brown makes me nauseous. When the US and UK SHOULD be totally united, he’s making a virtue out of the fact that he will make us separate.

David Cameron’s attempt to "fight back" against his plummeting poll numbers starts today. Beating his chest in a display of imagined bravado, The Daily Cameron reports that Call Me Dave has declared that in order to help fix the "broken society" (aka his broken poll numbers) he wants to return to teachers the power to manage disruption in their classrooms. Parents would lose the right to appeal to local education authorities when their children are excluded from schools under Tory plans. " I believe schools should be independent but headteachers should be captain of their own ship," he said Good behaviour agreements between parents and schools would also be introduced to set out codes of behaviour that pupils should adhere to. Parents would be obliged to sign the documents before their children gained admission to schools.

What a crock. For starters, there would be dozens of "human rights" lawyers queueing up to take a case against a school that did as Cameron suggests, and the financial risk to any headmaster who excluded some feral youth would be significant. The only way to re-assert REAL discipline in the classroom would be for the UK to withdraw from the Human Rights Act, so providing the freedom for teachers to control their more riotous students. That is not on Cameron’s agenda and so it is that he projects more soundbites as poor substitute for substantive policy. People see through Cameron, he’s been rumbled as "B" Division Blair with slicked back hair and slicked back PR statements masquerading as policies.

The issue that seems to concern our legal profession most is that couples who are living together should have more legal rights, according to a report from the Law Commission. It says the current law is "unjust" and the 2.2m co-habiting couples in England and Wales should have more protection if they split up. The report says the majority of couples who live together wrongly believe they are protected by what is known as "common law" marriage. But it has denied its proposals will undermine marriage.

Well it would say that, wouldn’t it? If people want to live together that’s fine. If people want the legal "protection" that marriage affords, then there is a very simple thing to do – get married. This interfering by lawyers is aimed more at feathering their own nests since once the enhanced "protection" is given to unmarried couples then – hey presto – you’re going to need lawyers to enforce it, aren’t you? £££££’s in their eyes folks. Furthermore, I think that what the issue the Law Commission SHOULD be looking at is how easy is it nowadays for a married couple to separate. I think separation should really be the last resort but sadly for so many it is the first. For me, the institution of marriage is of central importance to our society and I guess that is why it is being subverted and attacked on all fronts – with the Law Commission leading this weeks assault on it. Lawyers – who would trust them? Ahem…

100 years ago, Lord Robert Paden-Powell harnessed that unique British genius for inspiring groups of people to do the proper thing when he organized the Scouting Movement.

Typically British, scouting emphasizes the great outdoors and outdoor adventures. Scouting teaches a code for living, a code for a happy, healthy and productive life, but leaves it up to the individual scout to make the right choices. Scouting is not proscriptive.

Scouting, democratic in nature, emphasizes “learning by doing.” Leadership is decentralized and scout leaders, troops and the scouts, themselves, have free rein within the general framework.

100 years later, scouting thrives and the movement is helping youth throughout the world establish happy, healthy and productive lives.

As a forty-something, I’m always keenly aware that the future belongs to those younger than me, in a certain sense. If you get what I’m saying, I am at an age where I realise that my thoughts and opinions were mostly formed from my experiences as a teenager and in my twenties. I guess that’s true for most of us, and so now those decades of wild youth are behind me, I find myself anxious not to become too "old" or too "set in my ways" too soon. One must strive to embrace current ways of thinking, new ideas, new approaches, in order to stay "young at heart".

With that in mind, here’s a good example of a guy who has clearly got it all wrong, a guy who has not yet taken the modern approach on board. Mr Ake Nilson of London writes thusly in the letters page of the Financial Times:

"Sir, In your editorial "It’s time to plan for the next deluge" (July 25) you say that "it is now scientifically incontrovertible that global warming is making heavy rain fall more frequently across the world’s temperate latitudes". But less than a year ago, on August 10 2006, you reported: "This year’s hot, dry summer will be repeated many times in the future and will become normal in the next 40 to 50 years if climate scientists are correct."

Please could you make up your mind as to the effect of global warming?"

No, no, no, NO, Mr Nilson! You are simply stuck in a bygone age, you are not understanding the modern approach to science at all. Yes, I understand that, like myself, you were taught that science is about first asking a question, then gathering data, then observing results and drawing conclusions therefrom, conclusions which may well contradict any preconceptions you might have had as to the answer to your question.

But that is simply not the way things are done any more; at least not where the issue of "global warming" is concerned. Oh no. You see, the scientifically correct approach is to start with the answer, "It’s all down to global warming". You have to get that fixed in your mind as a scientific constant, a given, a fait accompli, right from first principles. A bit like the speed of light, "c", you understand. Only then can you start to frame the questions around it. So, we see that: Too much rain? = Global Warming. Not enough rain? = Global Warming. Average Rain? (Go on, have a guess… Clue: G—– W——). So, it doesn’t matter if it’s the hottest, dryest summer on record, or the coolest, wettest summer on record – you start from the basic premise that it’s all due to global warming. That’s how the scientific consensus works these days. And if last year’s predictions seem to contradict this year’s predictions, what of it? Have you forgotten doublethink? Oceania is at war with Eastasia: therefore Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. We will cure you eventually.

You do not defeat terrorism by rewarding terrorists, regardless of how many bleeding heart liberals argue otherwise. Want to know where that flawed approach leads to? Read UNIONISM DECAYED 1997-2007 - It's my first book and it explains what happens when you seeek to appease terrorists and call it peace. It's available right now for ATW readers so make sure you get your copy by emailing the editor! This is the book that dissents from the herd mentality that doing wrong can lead to being right. It doesn't and this book spells out WHY.

Copyright & copy; 2010 A Tangled Web (All rights reserved).Comments on articles here are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of A Tangled Web or David Vance. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise unacceptable may be deleted by the Editor. However the fact a particular comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by David Vance of the views expressed therein.